Appeal No. 1996-2766
Application No. 08/258,909
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Fu in view of Davies (Answer, page 3). 1
We reverse this rejection for reasons which follow.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Fu discloses a solution for
cleaning a contact lens comprising a tonicity agent, a
viscosity builder, a sequestering agent and water (Answer,
page 3). The examiner further finds that Fu does not disclose
or suggest the inclusion of an enzyme but discloses the
addition of an ethylenediamine surfactant in amounts as little
as 0.01% (Id.). The examiner submits that appellants have not
shown that the range of surfactant taught by Fu (as low as
0.01%) “is not encompassed by the instant negative limitation
‘substantial absence of a surfactantly effective amount of
surfactant.’” (Answer, page 5). The examiner further notes2
1The final rejection of claims 18 and 23 under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn by the
examiner in view of appellants’ response dated Sep. 27, 1995,
Paper No. 27 (see the Advisory Action dated Nov. 14, 1995,
Paper No. 28).
2The “instant negative limitation” quoted by the examiner
is incorrect. The claimed provision reads “wherein a protein-
dissolving effective amount of surfactant is absent from said
composition.” (see claim 15 on appeal).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007